sure seems a lot more efficient to just have one short RFC instead of a bunch of RFCs that wind up changing well known RFC #s for almost no meaningful changes - i (never mind having to change training documents to point to the changed RFC numbers) Scott > On Oct 20, 2018, at 5:27 PM, John C Klensin <john-ietf@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > --On Sunday, October 21, 2018 10:07 +1300 Brian E Carpenter > <brian.e.carpenter@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> fwiw I agree. There is no reference to IASA in 2418, for >> obvious reasons. >> >> From a practical point of view, any terminology issue could >> be handled >> as an erratum with disposition "wait for update". > > That, IMO, would be an even better solution than creating an > updating document that says "any time earlier documents say > 'IETF Executive Director' replace it with..." and similar things > and then hunting down the relevant documents and marking them as > updated. > > Depending on how compulsive the WG and relevant AD are feeling, > I think either would work. But we really have better ways to > spend our time than replacing a process document to change a > title... or at least I hope we do. > > Frankly, the only good reason I can see for generating all of > these IASA2 documents just to change terminology is to create > enough noise that the community doesn't notice and pay attention > to changes that actually might be controversial. I trust and > assume that is not the intent of anyone involved. > > john > > >
